Lady Jane Grey was a disputed queen though she only reigned for 9 days , she wasn't popular at the time because england was coming back to catholicism as Mary was the natural heir
Oliver Cromwell and Richard Cromwell ( his son ) were not kings, they were considered Lord Protector of England after the civil war where the king Charles I was beheaded and it was proclamed the Republic - the only short period that England became Republic in all history- It was a period called Protectorate and after them the monarchy was restored with the king Charles II ( son of Charles I ) who was living in the exile in France. If I'm mistaken please correct me.
You also missed "Henry the Young King". He was actually crowned during his father Henry II's lifetime! He was Henry's oldest son ...(guess Henry II didn't bank on his son rebelling against him!) but died before his father thus Richard I became king instead :)
You do realize there were kings of England before 1066, don't you? William I -- WIllie the Bastard -- was an alien usurper and tyrant who had about as much claim to be king as a sack of used cat litter. Don't quaff the Norman kool-aid.
I like your clip but the two men you put among Charles I and Charles II weren't actually kings!! they were like" presidents" the timid try of Britain of become a republic right!! W British Monarchy could it live forever!!
Cromwell tried to destroy the monarchy. He killed poor Charles and melted down hundreds of years of worth of royal treasure and history. He don't belong on this video and neither does his son. Hate them.
Why does it start with William I? WHat about Cnut, AEthelred, Harthacnut, Harold Harefoot, Cnut, Sweyn Forkbeard, Harold II, Edward the confessor, Edgar the Atheling, Edmund II, Edward the Martyr, Edgar, Aedwig, Edred, Edmund I, Athelstan, Edward the Elder and Alfred the Great?
@privatecaboose250 The English Edward 1st invaded Wales in1277 and LLywelyn , Prince of Wales was killed in battle in 1282 . The Welsh were subjected to the horrors of English occupation and were kept in check by a ring of mighty castles . There were many Welsh uprisings but it was not until 1400 that the country united under Owain Glyndwr and drove the English out . These wars lasted 10 years and the English gradually regained control . Glyndwr was never captured and no peace treaty was signed
@ComeOnBritain And people wonder why English are disliked by Welsh and Scots. WTF do you mean "and then Wales appeared"? Sprung up out of the sea like an active underground volcano did it? You should change your name to ComeOnEngland. Also love that by "We" you actually mean people that lived centuries ago.
Only one thing could improve this, and that would be that the length of their reigns would have been included. You know--this one lasted 45 years, that one lasted 6 months, etc., etc. A+ for effort. Keep up the good work.
Kings, queens, royalty, it's all evil, it's keeps wars going, it keeps darkness on the planet, it should never be, and it's also a joke that only some get to be wealthy, only a few get to have, do, see, be, it's really sad. Insestious, interbreading, pathological skum of the earth!
@dekerranda Are you so ignorant and stupid?There are wealthy people in the World many times more than any King or Queen! All the troubles in the world today and the wars are caused by Presidents of Republics and all the Monarchies of the World with their Kings and Queens and Princes are in Peace and live in prosperity.You are the scum of the earth and a pathological jealous liar!!!SHAME ON YOU!!!Honit soit qu'il mal y pense!
@Jame243 Your comment to me was redundant, you said there are more wealthy people in the world than any king or queen, and that the troubles are caused by presidents, but if you did your homework you know that at least the American presidents are knighted by the queen of England, they work for her. This power goes way back to the Pharohs, and so does the blood line, and they interbread and marry to keep the wealth and power in the family. They are pathlogical because of it. Do your homework!
@dekerranda Also IF you did your homework you would know that if I remember right, the majority of the WORLD'S wealth at the moment is owned by 1% of the population, what does that tell you? What about the housing crisis and how that basically got rid of even the middle class. The line between rich and poor is very noticible now, and who do you think has all the money? The queen of England has quite of bit of it, then presidents, corperations, the UN, Wallstreet and so on. YOUR'E IN THE DARK!
@dekerranda The USA Presidents are causing and cause all the trouble and the wars in the World!President Wilson is responsible for the overthrow of the German and Austrian Monarchies and preparing the way for Hitler to appear and he is the cause of the World War II.The History of the World's States is the History of their Kings and Queens and Princes! You are simply jealous of the beauty,majestry and glory and all the beautiful things that the Royal own!Normal people love Royalty and honor them
@Jame243 Normal people know what they are all about, normal people know that "royalty" only leads to problems for everyone else. Why in the world are you so in love with them, what are they doing for you? except hording all of the wealth for themselves, and you love them for that? I really don't think you know what is really going on in the world today, but I don't have time to explain it to you, besides you would probably never believe me and would just keep worshiping them. They are thieves.
@Jame243 They have stollen their wealth, they are stealing it today from you, from me, from anyone they chose and that's a good thing?, they are to be worshiped? how sick minded is that? Have you ever studied their blood line? They are related to Bush, Clinton, and many others, they are sick, demon infiltrated parasites and work for the dark side and you worship that? This is beyond my scope of understanding. Look into who they really are and get back to me, you are not doing your homework.
@Jame243 They are very, very interesting I'll give you that, it all seems very romantic, but in reality they are thieves, murderers, liars, and their blood line is demonic. I can understand your facination with them, but your eyes are only seeing the romance, your eyes are not open and you are asleep to the real world. The real world is not pretty, but you must open your eyes and look at it head on. Sorry to rain on your royal parade, but they are demonic parasites, look into it for yourself.
@Jame243 You already wrote me and told me I was bad and paranoid and evil, I got it, you can leave me alone now. Maybe you are not remembering that you already wrote me, so please stop writting me now, I don't like or need your personal hits. Remember my name on Youtube, remember that you already wrote me and leave me alone now! I noticed that you are 67 years old or so, maybe you'd better do some memory exercises, cause it's like you are not remembering you arleady told me I am paranoid.
@Jame243 And your little coded statement in French or whatever languge you used better not be nasty and evil towards me. Do your homework though cause you are in the dark, asleep and at the moment an idiot. WAKE UP!
Lady Jane Grey was never really queen but only a short usurper.
and thus has no place on a list of English sovereigns same with Cromwell.
also The last Queen of England was Queen Ann in 1707 that when England and Scotland formed Great Britain thus a British crown not English.
thirdly if you had the audacity to name the the aforementioned Lady Grey why not Matilda the the son of Henry I and mother of Henry II why she was bidding for the crown with Stephen.
@HoundogAlex I think you'll find Matilda was the daughter rather than son of Henry II! Also the English and Scottish crowns have obviously been unified since the reign of James I and VI, so the Queen Anne era act of Union doesn't make much difference.
@rahotep101 ah i did put son instead of daughter didn't i. and it was henry I not the second although that was probably a typo respectfully. and Yes their was a joint monarchy since the crowning of King James I / VI in 1603 after the death of Elizabeth however their remained a devision of the crowns till the act of union 1707 when the name of the kingdom officially changes thus George I was never king of England but Great Britain although that is all still a technicality.
nice slide show, but I'd change two things... . 1. Add dates of their reign, and 2, change that horrid music to something more be-fitting a British royalty..
You're missing Matilda (de jure: 1135-1154 [note: she was Henry I's legal, whose crown was usurped by her cousin Stephen]; de facto: April-November 1141 [when she officially ruled the country, though she ruled large portions of England as early as 1139 and continued to rule in opposition to Stephen after his Nov. 1141 release until her deposition via brief capture in 1142]), who has just as much of a right to be on the list as Edward V and more of a right to be on the list than Jane Grey.
Being a King (note I don't say Queen) in the middle ages requires more than blood. Stephen took the throne in a much similar (though less dramatic) way as William I, by force, and that's all that matters. Mathilda came close, but never as close as she needed. I certainly agree that Jane Grey shouldn't be on the list, but Edward V is on the list because he legally was King, until Richard III issued Titulus Regius.
Why would the US be a Monarchy?(ya thats just what we want, one man or women with complete control and power). I don't know if you know this but, the Queen of England is just for tradition. England is not a Monarchy. Britain is not that much different then the US(just a few small differences).
@ihavtugo Exactly, you just proved my point. If the U.S has no tradition, it can't hurt to give it some, since as you said, "Britain it not that much different than the U.S." And btw, who says one person can't have complete control in a presidency? This "democratic" system gives way to bribery and other corruption as much as any other government does.
@NewDawnFades608 In a monarchy the King(or Queen) has complete control. In a Democracy the people have complete control. The people are represented by the president(or prime minister). But the president is not king because he has no power, congress does. The president only voices the views of the people.
I agree with you on the Bribery and corruption. But thats a completely different story.
And how would the US get tradition? You said it can't hurt to get some. But exactly how do you do that?
@ihavtugo People having control in a democracy is what's *supposed* to happen, but i can say there's definitely no real representation of the people. a perfect democracy cannot exist considering the power-thirsty nature of many humans. at least with a monarchy, you pretty much know who's in control and can get rid of them when you want, albeit you'd have to pay for it with your own life.
How can't it get tradition? There's no powerful mysticism in a presidency. Definitely not the same pride.
@NewDawnFades608 The people vote in members of the government. The people have the say. And they have the right to protest if they don't agree. In a monarchy you'll be hanged for protesting (or the guillotine if you were in France).
A monarchy is not as good as it sounds. Why do you think so many countries revolted against it. Look at communism, on paper it sounds great. But in reality it just doesn't work.
For Documentaries please visit my blog. Just click on my youtube username. That will open my youtube channel. Scroll to the bottom of the page and the site address is listed under my profile. Sorry for the round about way, youtube won't let me list the address in comments
If the former, I think it's safe to say it'd be little different than the Danish period. If the latter, it's an interesting point of alternate history but most people fail to remember Edgar the Aetheling, the last true member of the Anglo-Saxon Royal House. Even if Harold wins, he'd eventually likely be ousted by Edgar as Harold, like his father, was an opportunist and usurper.
On the note of missing Matilda, I don't think you have to worry since she's scarcely recognised to begin with. The concept of a Western or Northern European monarch being of the female gender during any period during the feudal age is quite a fantastical thing. Even if in terms of raw administration Matilda would reign decently, in an age where command of an army was more important, it's quite well we don't recognise her as they wouldn't then either.
@PurePerfection I agree with you.... there was a in fight going on at that time between henry I and his cousin Stephen this is where/when matilda comes in
Good job. I am considering foing something on the rulers of Poland or Russia and your slideshow helped me realize it doesn't need to be long and drawn out.
@BillDFC scotish history is just as important as english history culminating in great britain and history can never be rewritten. we havent swallowed up scottish history but we have come together and created a new nation which has in 300 years achieved a great deal.
For what its worth I always write the monarch who reigned from 1603-1621 as James I/VI in the double numerical sense. You make a fair enough point but I believe the union is a predominately positive thing and it would be foolish to turn the clock back on 400 years of our shared Britishness (incidently im not English or Scottish)
Well thats a presumption. Im both a unionist and pro-European. I think the EU institution needs serious reform but I support the principles behind it. Of course you have every right to regard Scotland as a separate entity but I think that is to ignore 400 years of shared British history. I can't understand why nationalists are so hostile to the concept of Britishness. Unionists aren't suggesting the rejection of Scottish cultural identity. Its a great thing and should be embraced.
@WORLD8NSH5KNIGHT1 I am not hostile to anything, but I believe in Scottish nationhood and our ancient independence which we fought so hard to keep before giving it away.
@BillDFC You're talking rubbish. The numbering convention continues from the sovereigns of England. The present Queen is Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. Will you stop cluttering up this thread with your ignorant ramblings?
@BillDFC You miss the point. It has been agreed, by Order In Council of the Privy Council, that all United Kingdom monarchs take the highest number of any chosen name FROM EITHER THE KINGDOM OF ENGLAND OR THE KINGDOM OF SCOTLAND. There is no problem from 1603 as there is no conflict with this convention. So, if Charles wants to be Charles, he's Charles III. But if he wants to be 'David', he will be King David III of the United Kingdom (no David's in England, but previously two in Scotland).
@BillDFC Also, 'British' monarchy did not begin in 1603. It began in 1707. James VI and I, Charles I, and Charles II were crowned separately at Westminster and the Palace of Scone. James II and VII didn't because he was deposed. William III, Mary II and Queen Anne didn't but they were acclaimed separately as King/Queen of England, Scotland, Ireland and de jurore France. You need to read more widely from historical texts before you start blowing hot air on here you narrow-minded Scottish twit.
@BillDFC No. The two crowns were not united in 1603. Simply one person (James VI and I) wore two crowns at the same time. Scotland and England continued to be separate countries with, as you say, separate Parliaments until the Act of Union in 1707. 'Great Britain' did not exist until 1707. The sovereign's title was 'King of England, Scotland, Ireland and (sic) France' until 1707. Hence when James II was crowned he was designated 'James II and VII'. Do some reading!!!
@FreiherrHarkonnen Afred the great also brought literacy back after the Danes almost ended it ( he did five translations of the latin bible in to english ,himself)
does the blood line in the royal family stay with the females or males? are these all sons and daughters of the people that became kings and queens b4 them?
Not a bad slideshow. Lively. The Cromwell's were effectively sovereigns.
However after 1707 (with the Act of Union) the kings and Queens were monarchs of Great Britain and then (1800) the United Kingdom. Queen Anne was the last 'Queen of England' in that sense. England is only part of the realm for which Elizabeth II is sovereign- she is Monarch of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Commonwealth Realm (not just England!)- this is a very common mistake- other than that, I enjoyed this.
Actually they did. 1649-1660. The Interegnum. Yes, Charles was the de jure sovereign in exile but like it or not, for those 11 years Oliver Cromwell was the de facto ruler of England and his second instigation as Lord Protector was more like a coronation. I wasn't implying that he was 'literally' sovereign but he was the most powerful man in the land for that period. Also im British so respectfully, I don't need a history lesson. Also, Anne Boleyn wasn't the complete saint she is
sometimes made out to be. Don't get me wrong- her execution was wrong (esp the absurd allegations of witchcraft etc), but she wasn't completely guilt-free. Just in case its comes across that im pro-Cromwell, im not but in my view absolute monarchy was just as unprogressive as the harsh years of Cromwelianism. My position is of a moderate constitutional monarchist.
If you include little Edward V who was locked in the Tower by Richard 111, should Prince Arthur be included--Lionheart's kid who was put away by John?
It has been proved by stephen oppenheimer that modern day english mostly came from the Iberian peninsula after the last ice age. Then a strong part of Celts and Norman were French
@gipcambero actually ,the Anglo saxon rulers were at war with each other.... so by the time the bastard invaded(due to some BS that he believed about Harald promising him the crown of england) they didn't have any way to defend themselves against william I ( a History of Britain)
@gipcambero not only William the conqueror^^ but all the french kings of england rose, all kings of house of Normandy, house of Plantagenet and maybe other house.
Oliver Cromwell wasnt a king. he was a piece of crap and a damn murderer. Remove him from the list ffs. Also Jane Grey was a whore who tried to steal the throne from Queen Mary and i hope she is in hell atm.
Rot in hell, William the Bastard
TalonMercenary 5 days ago
@TalonMercenary nah, rot in hell Longshanks.
Tossphate 3 days ago
@Tossphate Never
TalonMercenary 3 days ago
Lady Jane Grey was a disputed queen though she only reigned for 9 days , she wasn't popular at the time because england was coming back to catholicism as Mary was the natural heir
QueenWaterLily 1 week ago
Oliver Cromwell and Richard Cromwell ( his son ) were not kings, they were considered Lord Protector of England after the civil war where the king Charles I was beheaded and it was proclamed the Republic - the only short period that England became Republic in all history- It was a period called Protectorate and after them the monarchy was restored with the king Charles II ( son of Charles I ) who was living in the exile in France. If I'm mistaken please correct me.
RodrigoSisdeli 4 weeks ago
i hate these ads!
razi1004 1 month ago 2
You also missed "Henry the Young King". He was actually crowned during his father Henry II's lifetime! He was Henry's oldest son ...(guess Henry II didn't bank on his son rebelling against him!) but died before his father thus Richard I became king instead :)
MissHistory92 1 month ago
In a strange sort of way that music works for this video!!!
791812sdc 3 months ago
You do realize there were kings of England before 1066, don't you? William I -- WIllie the Bastard -- was an alien usurper and tyrant who had about as much claim to be king as a sack of used cat litter. Don't quaff the Norman kool-aid.
Gostwriterindisguise 3 months ago
the kings of england are French....
fatriciaful 3 months ago
@fatriciaful A lot of them were, yes. And Welsh. Nowadays they're German -- slight improvement, I suppose.
Gostwriterindisguise 3 months ago
Fun! :-)
Marzipancat 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I like your clip but the two men you put among Charles I and Charles II weren't actually kings!! they were like" presidents" the timid try of Britain of become a republic right!! W British Monarchy could it live forever!!
saluteforever 4 months ago
Comment removed
saluteforever 4 months ago
god job
fdagato 4 months ago
dude there were more queens than that
rockinamber18 4 months ago
This is a great reference. I'm trying to learn them.
streetwhereulive 4 months ago
no blondes???
PricelessView35 5 months ago
Long live to English monarchy, they are a part of your story brother..
Gretings from france...
Bad choice of music...
Be strong to for the futur....
Lahire2012 5 months ago
descendant of king henry 1 and his daughter maragaret de galloway
lge8710094 5 months ago
cant wait to put Mr.Bean as a king
goodatmath12 6 months ago
The music absolutly doesn't fit to the topic. It ruins the whole video.
JanaSklibova 6 months ago
are ya all from UK
goodatmath12 6 months ago
Strange choice of music for this topic.
For a video about gay discos in the 1980's, though, this music would be ideal.
anonUK 6 months ago
Cromwell tried to destroy the monarchy. He killed poor Charles and melted down hundreds of years of worth of royal treasure and history. He don't belong on this video and neither does his son. Hate them.
791812sdc 6 months ago
It makes you proud to be British. Can't wait to see what prince William's first son will look like!!!!!
791812sdc 6 months ago
first charles than his son, but who knows harry can be king as well. the crown seems to fall on the 2nd son usually. we'll just have to wait and see
kisha1682 6 months ago
Why does it start with William I? WHat about Cnut, AEthelred, Harthacnut, Harold Harefoot, Cnut, Sweyn Forkbeard, Harold II, Edward the confessor, Edgar the Atheling, Edmund II, Edward the Martyr, Edgar, Aedwig, Edred, Edmund I, Athelstan, Edward the Elder and Alfred the Great?
burtha3 6 months ago
@burtha3
The video is from 1066 after the Norman invasion of Britain, William was the first king of the new England so to speak...
MeeePPeeeMGG 6 months ago
The 1st king was from 900AD, when it was known as the kingdom of England.
ComeOnBritain 6 months ago
@ComeOnBritain
Yeah but he has took from the Normans from 1066
King William I (William the Conquerer)
privatecaboose250 4 months ago
lol all this crap happened centuries before the US was discovered!
ComeOnBritain 4 months ago
@ComeOnBritain
I've check your channel what about Bannockburn Defeat, Stirling Bridge. England had more defeats than 3 you know
privatecaboose250 4 months ago
I only speak of major ones...
ComeOnBritain 4 months ago
@ComeOnBritain
Are you ashamed of my people (Scots) kickin your arse? lol
privatecaboose250 4 months ago
I'm sorry but the majority of wars England and Scotland have had end up with England the victor.
ComeOnBritain 4 months ago 2
@ComeOnBritain
But we did kick your arse sometimes like bannockburn and stirling, in end it ended up a stalemate between Scotland and England
privatecaboose250 4 months ago
S-stalemate? We took the whole country for 50 years. THEN this apperent stalement took place. And soon Wales appeared... Oh boy... Wales.
ComeOnBritain 4 months ago
@ComeOnBritain
England never conquered Scotland did they?.......no so it ended up a stalemate
About Wales well I don't know about that
privatecaboose250 4 months ago
For a certain peroid of time.
ComeOnBritain 4 months ago
@privatecaboose250 The English Edward 1st invaded Wales in1277 and LLywelyn , Prince of Wales was killed in battle in 1282 . The Welsh were subjected to the horrors of English occupation and were kept in check by a ring of mighty castles . There were many Welsh uprisings but it was not until 1400 that the country united under Owain Glyndwr and drove the English out . These wars lasted 10 years and the English gradually regained control . Glyndwr was never captured and no peace treaty was signed
alunhughes147 4 months ago
@ComeOnBritain And people wonder why English are disliked by Welsh and Scots. WTF do you mean "and then Wales appeared"? Sprung up out of the sea like an active underground volcano did it? You should change your name to ComeOnEngland. Also love that by "We" you actually mean people that lived centuries ago.
Tossphate 3 days ago
i luv henrys dqa first portrait
bobo4890 6 months ago
them fucking cromwells were not monarchs
1stLordTheAdmiralty1 6 months ago
Length of reigns would be good, but I think it would have been nice to have the Anglo-saxon kings before William.
JayEey 7 months ago
Soon there will come King Arthur back from Avalon to claim his throne ! ! !
SuperPresidentDead 7 months ago
God save Our Kings and Queen
King William V .
babyblon33 9 months ago
This is a gret vid but England didn't begin in 1066, you should do of put the Anglo-Saxon Kings in too.
EnglishHuscarl 9 months ago
Only one thing could improve this, and that would be that the length of their reigns would have been included. You know--this one lasted 45 years, that one lasted 6 months, etc., etc. A+ for effort. Keep up the good work.
itsNOTreallyMYfault 10 months ago
Great videos
glammie4 11 months ago
You definetly should notice Alfred, the Great. :)
JanaSklibova 11 months ago
oliver and richard cromwell werent kings.
jbond5150 11 months ago
There have been 66 English monarchs dating back to 827AD (or something like that) Starting with the fist king of Saxondale Egbert I R.
Alfred the Great was the first king The United Kingdom of Daneland and Saxondale AKA England.
alex471996 1 year ago
Comment removed
alex471996 1 year ago
Tumble down Dick doesn't often get a mention!
rahotep101 1 year ago
Cromwell wasn't king of england!
123cdecde 1 year ago
Henry the VIII, gotta love him.
liamdudeeee 1 year ago
Kings, queens, royalty, it's all evil, it's keeps wars going, it keeps darkness on the planet, it should never be, and it's also a joke that only some get to be wealthy, only a few get to have, do, see, be, it's really sad. Insestious, interbreading, pathological skum of the earth!
dekerranda 1 year ago
@dekerranda Are you so ignorant and stupid?There are wealthy people in the World many times more than any King or Queen! All the troubles in the world today and the wars are caused by Presidents of Republics and all the Monarchies of the World with their Kings and Queens and Princes are in Peace and live in prosperity.You are the scum of the earth and a pathological jealous liar!!!SHAME ON YOU!!!Honit soit qu'il mal y pense!
Jame243 1 year ago
@Jame243 Your comment to me was redundant, you said there are more wealthy people in the world than any king or queen, and that the troubles are caused by presidents, but if you did your homework you know that at least the American presidents are knighted by the queen of England, they work for her. This power goes way back to the Pharohs, and so does the blood line, and they interbread and marry to keep the wealth and power in the family. They are pathlogical because of it. Do your homework!
dekerranda 1 year ago
@dekerranda Also IF you did your homework you would know that if I remember right, the majority of the WORLD'S wealth at the moment is owned by 1% of the population, what does that tell you? What about the housing crisis and how that basically got rid of even the middle class. The line between rich and poor is very noticible now, and who do you think has all the money? The queen of England has quite of bit of it, then presidents, corperations, the UN, Wallstreet and so on. YOUR'E IN THE DARK!
dekerranda 1 year ago
@dekerranda The USA Presidents are causing and cause all the trouble and the wars in the World!President Wilson is responsible for the overthrow of the German and Austrian Monarchies and preparing the way for Hitler to appear and he is the cause of the World War II.The History of the World's States is the History of their Kings and Queens and Princes! You are simply jealous of the beauty,majestry and glory and all the beautiful things that the Royal own!Normal people love Royalty and honor them
Jame243 1 year ago
@Jame243 Normal people know what they are all about, normal people know that "royalty" only leads to problems for everyone else. Why in the world are you so in love with them, what are they doing for you? except hording all of the wealth for themselves, and you love them for that? I really don't think you know what is really going on in the world today, but I don't have time to explain it to you, besides you would probably never believe me and would just keep worshiping them. They are thieves.
dekerranda 1 year ago
@Jame243 They have stollen their wealth, they are stealing it today from you, from me, from anyone they chose and that's a good thing?, they are to be worshiped? how sick minded is that? Have you ever studied their blood line? They are related to Bush, Clinton, and many others, they are sick, demon infiltrated parasites and work for the dark side and you worship that? This is beyond my scope of understanding. Look into who they really are and get back to me, you are not doing your homework.
dekerranda 1 year ago
@Jame243 They are very, very interesting I'll give you that, it all seems very romantic, but in reality they are thieves, murderers, liars, and their blood line is demonic. I can understand your facination with them, but your eyes are only seeing the romance, your eyes are not open and you are asleep to the real world. The real world is not pretty, but you must open your eyes and look at it head on. Sorry to rain on your royal parade, but they are demonic parasites, look into it for yourself.
dekerranda 1 year ago
@dekerranda you are paranoid!!!You are very bad!! And of a "demonic" evil thinking mind!!
It is written in the Scriptures by St.Paul: Fear God and honor the King!!!!
LAUS DEO!!!... and LONG LIVE THE KING!!!
Jame243 1 year ago
@Jame243 You already wrote me and told me I was bad and paranoid and evil, I got it, you can leave me alone now. Maybe you are not remembering that you already wrote me, so please stop writting me now, I don't like or need your personal hits. Remember my name on Youtube, remember that you already wrote me and leave me alone now! I noticed that you are 67 years old or so, maybe you'd better do some memory exercises, cause it's like you are not remembering you arleady told me I am paranoid.
dekerranda 1 year ago
@Jame243 And your little coded statement in French or whatever languge you used better not be nasty and evil towards me. Do your homework though cause you are in the dark, asleep and at the moment an idiot. WAKE UP!
dekerranda 1 year ago
@Jame243 And by the way, get off my back, you have no right to attack me, use your attacks elsewhere, God is watching!
dekerranda 1 year ago
Not as interesting as Kings and Queens of Scotland.
BillDFC 1 year ago
The Cromwell's were never monarchs but "Lord Protector"-basically kings in every sense but name
tranquiliz3r23 1 year ago 2
Firstly
Lady Jane Grey was never really queen but only a short usurper.
and thus has no place on a list of English sovereigns same with Cromwell.
also The last Queen of England was Queen Ann in 1707 that when England and Scotland formed Great Britain thus a British crown not English.
thirdly if you had the audacity to name the the aforementioned Lady Grey why not Matilda the the son of Henry I and mother of Henry II why she was bidding for the crown with Stephen.
HoundogAlex 1 year ago
@HoundogAlex I think you'll find Matilda was the daughter rather than son of Henry II! Also the English and Scottish crowns have obviously been unified since the reign of James I and VI, so the Queen Anne era act of Union doesn't make much difference.
rahotep101 1 year ago
@rahotep101 ah i did put son instead of daughter didn't i. and it was henry I not the second although that was probably a typo respectfully. and Yes their was a joint monarchy since the crowning of King James I / VI in 1603 after the death of Elizabeth however their remained a devision of the crowns till the act of union 1707 when the name of the kingdom officially changes thus George I was never king of England but Great Britain although that is all still a technicality.
sincerely Alexander
HoundogAlex 1 year ago
I can't wait to see Prince William become King! At some point there will probably be a King Arthur lol!
JorEl7771 1 year ago 14
@JorEl7771 Why? All he seems to do is party and drink. His grandmother is very hard-working, but not her grandsons.
BabeonToast 10 months ago
@JorEl7771 Charls Arthur not this Arthur. Wailiam Arthur not this Arthur.
This 3 king ist real Arthur.
vikibell2006 7 months ago
nice slide show, but I'd change two things... . 1. Add dates of their reign, and 2, change that horrid music to something more be-fitting a British royalty..
CE750 1 year ago
Get ready to put King William V in there next.
GrailcodeDotNet 1 year ago 24
@GrailcodeDotNet I can wait, he's not a very hard-working or selfless Royal. He's rather lazy and shallow.
BabeonToast 10 months ago
you forgot queen Matilda in the 12th century
carbugnov1952 1 year ago
Comment removed
icemanium 1 year ago
Comment removed
icemanium 1 year ago
You're missing Matilda (de jure: 1135-1154 [note: she was Henry I's legal, whose crown was usurped by her cousin Stephen]; de facto: April-November 1141 [when she officially ruled the country, though she ruled large portions of England as early as 1139 and continued to rule in opposition to Stephen after his Nov. 1141 release until her deposition via brief capture in 1142]), who has just as much of a right to be on the list as Edward V and more of a right to be on the list than Jane Grey.
icemanium 1 year ago
@icemanium
Being a King (note I don't say Queen) in the middle ages requires more than blood. Stephen took the throne in a much similar (though less dramatic) way as William I, by force, and that's all that matters. Mathilda came close, but never as close as she needed. I certainly agree that Jane Grey shouldn't be on the list, but Edward V is on the list because he legally was King, until Richard III issued Titulus Regius.
PurePerfection 1 year ago
Jane Grey? Oliver and Richard Cromwell? lol man these ppl were not kings.
Melaras456 1 year ago
Why would the US be a Monarchy?(ya thats just what we want, one man or women with complete control and power). I don't know if you know this but, the Queen of England is just for tradition. England is not a Monarchy. Britain is not that much different then the US(just a few small differences).
ihavtugo 1 year ago
@ihavtugo Exactly, you just proved my point. If the U.S has no tradition, it can't hurt to give it some, since as you said, "Britain it not that much different than the U.S." And btw, who says one person can't have complete control in a presidency? This "democratic" system gives way to bribery and other corruption as much as any other government does.
NewDawnFades608 1 year ago
@NewDawnFades608 In a monarchy the King(or Queen) has complete control. In a Democracy the people have complete control. The people are represented by the president(or prime minister). But the president is not king because he has no power, congress does. The president only voices the views of the people.
I agree with you on the Bribery and corruption. But thats a completely different story.
And how would the US get tradition? You said it can't hurt to get some. But exactly how do you do that?
ihavtugo 1 year ago
@ihavtugo People having control in a democracy is what's *supposed* to happen, but i can say there's definitely no real representation of the people. a perfect democracy cannot exist considering the power-thirsty nature of many humans. at least with a monarchy, you pretty much know who's in control and can get rid of them when you want, albeit you'd have to pay for it with your own life.
How can't it get tradition? There's no powerful mysticism in a presidency. Definitely not the same pride.
NewDawnFades608 1 year ago
@NewDawnFades608 The people vote in members of the government. The people have the say. And they have the right to protest if they don't agree. In a monarchy you'll be hanged for protesting (or the guillotine if you were in France).
A monarchy is not as good as it sounds. Why do you think so many countries revolted against it. Look at communism, on paper it sounds great. But in reality it just doesn't work.
ihavtugo 1 year ago
I wish the U.S had a monarchy :-( I've already memorized this order by heart.
NewDawnFades608 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
For Documentaries please visit my blog. Just click on my youtube username. That will open my youtube channel. Scroll to the bottom of the page and the site address is listed under my profile. Sorry for the round about way, youtube won't let me list the address in comments
popperslist 1 year ago
thank for explaining it to me,ds
Freyja1133 1 year ago
oliver and richard cromwell were not kings
william462 1 year ago
Look at Scottish Kings and Queens on you tube.
British monarchy did not begin until 1603.
BillDFC 1 year ago
If only Harald had won in 1066. It was the Norman's who started the bother!
BillDFC 1 year ago
@BillDFC
Do you mean Harald Hardarda or Harold Godwinsson?
If the former, I think it's safe to say it'd be little different than the Danish period. If the latter, it's an interesting point of alternate history but most people fail to remember Edgar the Aetheling, the last true member of the Anglo-Saxon Royal House. Even if Harold wins, he'd eventually likely be ousted by Edgar as Harold, like his father, was an opportunist and usurper.
PurePerfection 1 year ago
Sir christopher, DIdn't I say that england became a commonwealth back then ..Politically speaking
Freyja1133 1 year ago
Isn't that William I ( The Bastard) .. I know that william II was from Holland .. He reignes at the time of the salem witch trials
Freyja1133 1 year ago
On the note of missing Matilda, I don't think you have to worry since she's scarcely recognised to begin with. The concept of a Western or Northern European monarch being of the female gender during any period during the feudal age is quite a fantastical thing. Even if in terms of raw administration Matilda would reign decently, in an age where command of an army was more important, it's quite well we don't recognise her as they wouldn't then either.
That being said, important woman.
PurePerfection 1 year ago
@PurePerfection I agree with you.... there was a in fight going on at that time between henry I and his cousin Stephen this is where/when matilda comes in
Freyja1133 1 year ago
Good job. I am considering foing something on the rulers of Poland or Russia and your slideshow helped me realize it doesn't need to be long and drawn out.
theromanian19 1 year ago
Why are monarchs of England numbered as Kings and Queens of Britain???
Before 1603 they only ruled England.
BillDFC 1 year ago
@BillDFC I agree with you.. besides,,elizabeth I became the undoubted Queen Of England ,Wales& Ireland
Freyja1133 1 year ago
What a bunch of backward animals.
skyvilla 1 year ago
Charles the first or William the V?? anyone of these but not Henry...FOR GOD NOT HENRY!!!!
odinkey76 1 year ago
@odinkey76 Charles I I beleive
Freyja1133 1 year ago
In 843 Kenneth 1 (MacAlpine) became the first King of Scots,uniting the Picts and Scots.
He moved his centre of power from Dunaad in Argyll to Forteviot in Perthshire.
He brought the Stone of Destiny with him on which Kings were crowned at Scone before it was stolen by Edward 1 of England.
James V1 was the last ruler of an Independent Scotland.
BillDFC 1 year ago
@BillDFC James VI ,also Was James I of England
Freyja1133 1 year ago
Before 1603 Scotland had her own monarchs,now we are swallowed up by the English and our history ignored.
God bless the man in cloth of gold who won our Liberty.
BillDFC 1 year ago
@BillDFC scotish history is just as important as english history culminating in great britain and history can never be rewritten. we havent swallowed up scottish history but we have come together and created a new nation which has in 300 years achieved a great deal.
NumberDne 1 year ago
@NumberDne That would mean all monarchs being numbered from 1603 when the two crowns became one.
Thus, the last King Edward was Edward 11 of Britain,not the eigth. The pesent monarch is Elizabeth 1 not the second.
BillDFC 1 year ago
@BillDFC
For what its worth I always write the monarch who reigned from 1603-1621 as James I/VI in the double numerical sense. You make a fair enough point but I believe the union is a predominately positive thing and it would be foolish to turn the clock back on 400 years of our shared Britishness (incidently im not English or Scottish)
WORLD8NSH5KNIGHT1 1 year ago
@WORLD8NSH5KNIGHT1 I am a Scot and I see my country as an independent nation,not part of another entity.
Strange how Unionists in the British sense are always against a European Union though!
Please do not think I am anti-English.....far from it!
BillDFC 1 year ago
@BillDFC
Well thats a presumption. Im both a unionist and pro-European. I think the EU institution needs serious reform but I support the principles behind it. Of course you have every right to regard Scotland as a separate entity but I think that is to ignore 400 years of shared British history. I can't understand why nationalists are so hostile to the concept of Britishness. Unionists aren't suggesting the rejection of Scottish cultural identity. Its a great thing and should be embraced.
WORLD8NSH5KNIGHT1 1 year ago
@WORLD8NSH5KNIGHT1 I am not hostile to anything, but I believe in Scottish nationhood and our ancient independence which we fought so hard to keep before giving it away.
BillDFC 1 year ago
@BillDFC wrong.. she is Elizabeth II
Freyja1133 1 year ago
@Freyja1133 Elizabeth 11 of England,not Britain as there was no Elizabeth 1 of Brirain. You are wrong.
BillDFC 1 year ago
@BillDFC Bill, you may want to use The II for the #2... the same goes for Good Queen Bess
Freyja1133 1 year ago
@BillDFC You're talking rubbish. The numbering convention continues from the sovereigns of England. The present Queen is Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. Will you stop cluttering up this thread with your ignorant ramblings?
ds1868 1 year ago
@ds1868 Close your mind to facts if you want, British monarchy did not begin until 1603 and monarchs were numbered from then.
Your English monarchs never ruled my country.
BillDFC 1 year ago
@BillDFC You miss the point. It has been agreed, by Order In Council of the Privy Council, that all United Kingdom monarchs take the highest number of any chosen name FROM EITHER THE KINGDOM OF ENGLAND OR THE KINGDOM OF SCOTLAND. There is no problem from 1603 as there is no conflict with this convention. So, if Charles wants to be Charles, he's Charles III. But if he wants to be 'David', he will be King David III of the United Kingdom (no David's in England, but previously two in Scotland).
ds1868 1 year ago
@BillDFC Also, 'British' monarchy did not begin in 1603. It began in 1707. James VI and I, Charles I, and Charles II were crowned separately at Westminster and the Palace of Scone. James II and VII didn't because he was deposed. William III, Mary II and Queen Anne didn't but they were acclaimed separately as King/Queen of England, Scotland, Ireland and de jurore France. You need to read more widely from historical texts before you start blowing hot air on here you narrow-minded Scottish twit.
ds1868 1 year ago
@ds1868 You half wit! 1603 was the union of the crowns and 1707 the union of parliaments.
Are all pork munchers as thick as you?
BillDFC 1 year ago
@BillDFC No. The two crowns were not united in 1603. Simply one person (James VI and I) wore two crowns at the same time. Scotland and England continued to be separate countries with, as you say, separate Parliaments until the Act of Union in 1707. 'Great Britain' did not exist until 1707. The sovereign's title was 'King of England, Scotland, Ireland and (sic) France' until 1707. Hence when James II was crowned he was designated 'James II and VII'. Do some reading!!!
ds1868 1 year ago
@ds1868 The Union of the Crowns was in 1603. James V1 of Scotland became James 1 of Britain. FACT.
BillDFC 1 year ago
There were quite a few Kings of England before 1066 but never mind enjoyable to watch anyway.
ds1868 1 year ago
@ds1868 they were the rulers of the seven kingdoms/heptarchy ( anglo -Saxon)
Freyja1133 1 year ago
@Freyja1133 England was united under one crown before 1066. The heptarchy was finished by the end of the ninth century.
ds1868 1 year ago
Don't forget the first who received the title "King of England"...Alfred The Great
FreiherrHarkonnen 1 year ago 8
@FreiherrHarkonnen Afred the great also brought literacy back after the Danes almost ended it ( he did five translations of the latin bible in to english ,himself)
Freyja1133 1 year ago
@FreiherrHarkonnen Actually, most lists start with Egbert.
vinylsingleman 1 year ago
what do king and queens even do nowadays? Like what does Queen Elizabeth do?
xenomann442 1 year ago
@xenomann442 Nothing...they are parasites.
BillDFC 1 year ago
23usmc23 no after charels 2 the monarchy was given to the cromwells and they fought there way to the thrown.
CanadiaMiliatry15 1 year ago
@CanadiaMiliatry15 no the cromwells ruled in a commonwealth..not a monarchy
Freyja1133 1 year ago
does the blood line in the royal family stay with the females or males? are these all sons and daughters of the people that became kings and queens b4 them?
23usmc23 1 year ago
@23usmc23 sometimes they are the sons, sometimes they are brothers, sometimes it's a completely different family... it all depends.
Nicollie1062 1 year ago
@23usmc23 Males
Freyja1133 1 year ago
great wotk on itunes it is called that but it part 4 on i tunes great work my friend
kinzin100 1 year ago
What's the name of the song? Love it.
gladajag 1 year ago 4
@gladajag It's Chronologie 4 by Jean Michel Jarre
animegirlUK 1 year ago 3
@animegirlUK
thank you on itunes they break it down it is part 4 thanks good work my friend
kinzin100 1 year ago
You should change the title to 'Kings and Queens of England, Great Britain and the United Kingdom'
WORLD8NSH5KNIGHT1 1 year ago
Not a bad slideshow. Lively. The Cromwell's were effectively sovereigns.
However after 1707 (with the Act of Union) the kings and Queens were monarchs of Great Britain and then (1800) the United Kingdom. Queen Anne was the last 'Queen of England' in that sense. England is only part of the realm for which Elizabeth II is sovereign- she is Monarch of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Commonwealth Realm (not just England!)- this is a very common mistake- other than that, I enjoyed this.
WORLD8NSH5KNIGHT1 1 year ago 3
I know this to be true, but I chose not to give the movie that long winded title.
animegirlUK 1 year ago 2
@animegirlUK
Fair reasoning. Thankyou for the slideshow.
WORLD8NSH5KNIGHT1 1 year ago
@animegirlUK what programe you've used to do the slides and make the video? I want the same for make the video "All the kings of Italy"
Antralian 1 year ago
@Antralian Windows movie maker.
animegirlUK 1 year ago
@animegirlUK ahahahaha ok...simply!!! Thank You (i've to do a long works...to list all kings of Italy from 500 A.D. to 1946...)
Antralian 1 year ago
@WORLD8NSH5KNIGHT1 THe Cromwells never ruled england!
Thomas Cromwell was the one who instigated The Beheading of Anne Boleyn
Oliver Cromwell was a puritan who fought in the english civil war of the mid 1600s
Freyja1133 1 year ago
@Freyja1133
Actually they did. 1649-1660. The Interegnum. Yes, Charles was the de jure sovereign in exile but like it or not, for those 11 years Oliver Cromwell was the de facto ruler of England and his second instigation as Lord Protector was more like a coronation. I wasn't implying that he was 'literally' sovereign but he was the most powerful man in the land for that period. Also im British so respectfully, I don't need a history lesson. Also, Anne Boleyn wasn't the complete saint she is
WORLD8NSH5KNIGHT1 1 year ago
@WORLD8NSH5KNIGHT1 I never said that Ane boleyn was a saint... but then neither was Henry VIII
Freyja1133 1 year ago
@Freyja1133
sometimes made out to be. Don't get me wrong- her execution was wrong (esp the absurd allegations of witchcraft etc), but she wasn't completely guilt-free. Just in case its comes across that im pro-Cromwell, im not but in my view absolute monarchy was just as unprogressive as the harsh years of Cromwelianism. My position is of a moderate constitutional monarchist.
WORLD8NSH5KNIGHT1 1 year ago
@WORLD8NSH5KNIGHT1 I have one thing to say about thomas cromwell..he wasn't a saint himself
He usurped Henry VIII after his death ( meaning his main ambition was to become King Thomas)
Freyja1133 1 year ago
@WORLD8NSH5KNIGHT1 No. Oliver Cromwell and Richard Cromwell were not sovereigns. They were 'Lord Protector's' in the so-called Englisg Commonwealth.
ds1868 1 year ago
Good job, I can't believe how much time has passed lol. How did they keep up which number goes to the names. lol.
mckfrr 1 year ago
boring!
UncleKirky 1 year ago
I can't think of a more fitting tribute to England's kings than this soundtrack.
Trance really sums up the middle ages.
ultramagellan 1 year ago
loll
NottinghamForest22 1 year ago
waste of 4:05
thanks for nothing.
outspokendestroyer 2 years ago
Cromwell wasnt a King. He stomped Charles I's crown into the mud lol.
NottinghamForest22 2 years ago
hahaha
CiscoNast 2 years ago
True. He was head of state though. A king in all but name.
JayEey 2 years ago
then he took full power over parliament
jdi0093113 1 year ago
@NottinghamForest22 that was because Charles' wife Henrietta couldn't keep from meddling in the politics of the country
Freyja1133 1 year ago
If you include little Edward V who was locked in the Tower by Richard 111, should Prince Arthur be included--Lionheart's kid who was put away by John?
nitrate6971 2 years ago
Why Wiliam the conqueror is appreciated in england ?? Didn't he destroyed the english culture and imposed a French one ????
gipcambero 2 years ago
Modern day English are a mixture of Anglo Saxon, Norman, Celt & Scandinavian. Simple..
madbob73 2 years ago
It has been proved by stephen oppenheimer that modern day english mostly came from the Iberian peninsula after the last ice age. Then a strong part of Celts and Norman were French
gipcambero 2 years ago
Proven my arse.
madbob73 2 years ago
search on google,or evn youtube
gipcambero 2 years ago
@gipcambero what is stepehen Openheimer's proof? he's german after all
Freyja1133 1 year ago
@gipcambero actually ,the Anglo saxon rulers were at war with each other.... so by the time the bastard invaded(due to some BS that he believed about Harald promising him the crown of england) they didn't have any way to defend themselves against william I ( a History of Britain)
Freyja1133 1 year ago
@gipcambero not only William the conqueror^^ but all the french kings of england rose, all kings of house of Normandy, house of Plantagenet and maybe other house.
snoopyvoodoo 1 year ago
Oliver Cromwell wasnt a king. he was a piece of crap and a damn murderer. Remove him from the list ffs. Also Jane Grey was a whore who tried to steal the throne from Queen Mary and i hope she is in hell atm.
Melaras456 2 years ago